Catholics: Beware the "Common Good"

Catholics form the single largest voting block in the United States (approx 25%). Indeed we could say “As the Church (in America) goes, so goes the country.”

However, Catholics are given very little direction as to how to vote according to a “properly formed Catholic conscience”. As a matter of fact, Catholics are given very little direction as to how to properly form a Catholic conscience in the first place.

Consequently, politicians and candidates who support laws and social programs that are diametrically opposed to Catholic moral teaching have little to worry about.

What little official direction is given is often inaccessible to the average Catholic, or is difficult to decipher. An example would be the recent (2003) statement from the USCCB: Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.

While the statement contains all the essential facts for Catholics, one could read it and still be left wondering on who to vote for as the document assumes some degree of moral formation on the part of the reader.

Private organizations and political action groups have entered into the confused milieu of Catholic voters and offered help. Two known voter guides for Catholics are:

1. Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics published by Catholic Answers
2. Voting for the Common Good – A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics published by TheCatholicAllilance.org

Both claim to present Catholic teaching…and both do. But there’s a difference Catholics should know about.

The Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics approaches the issue by delineating 5 moral issues upon which the Church’s teaching is clear and “non-negotiable” as the guide so calls them. (Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and Homosexual Marriage)

Voting for the Common Good mentions some of the same issues as does the “Serious Catholics” guide, but also mentions several other issues such as Immigration, Jobs, and Worker’s Rights, and makes no attempt to note any of them as “non-negotiable”. Nor does the guide infer a moral ranking. (In other words, the reader is left to decide whether abortion and the right to work carry the same moral weight.)

The question then is: While there are many issues of concern for Catholics, does the Church regard some issues to be more important than others and thus impose a greater claim on our consciences?

The answer is “Yes”. Par. 37 of the USCCB document states:

“…all issues do not carry the same moral weight and ….the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.”

The fact that Voting for the Common Good completely ignores a moral priority in the list of issues is a “red flag”. The “flattening” of the moral landscape or what is called the “seamless garment” approach is a common tactic amongst pro-abortion Catholics who pander to the Catholic vote.

They use this approach because it is the only tool they have at their disposal. A clear reiteration of the Church’s teaching on moral matters would show that the Right to Life, ESPECIALLY AT ITS INCEPTION, always takes precedence.

The reason this is so is because of the degree of the defenselessness of the victim. It even trumps euthanasia to a degree since there are times when the person euthanized may have played a role in the decision. Not so, the unborn child.

The issue of procured abortion as a direct attack on human life even trumps the closely related issue of embryonic stem cell research, since, with abortion, we must include fetal pain.

Critics are quick to point out that the Church also condemns genocide, poverty, starvation, racism, attacks on non-combatants, etc. Yes, this is true. But no Church document ever lists any of these FIRST! Abortion is ALWAYS listed first.

As RED as this “flag” was, a bigger red flag shows up on page 9. The guide says:

“Catholics must look at a candidate’s position on other life issues. Can one really claim to be ‘pro-life’ and yet support the death penalty…”

This is a direct attack on George W. Bush, who of course is “pro-life” and does support the death penalty. But more so, with this question, the guide reveals not just its partisan intent, but the authors’ real intent to misrepresent Catholic teaching.

The answer to their question is in fact “Yes”. A Catholic CAN BE “pro-life” AND support the death penalty. While John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, came as close as any Pope could come to calling the death penalty immoral, he stopped short.

He stopped short, because he had too. A Pope can create no new doctrine. He can clarify it. He can attach disciplines to it. But he can make nothing new.

In fact, the Church has always allowed for the death penalty under certain conditions. The Pope’s only new move was to question as to whether those conditions exist any more in today’s world. You can read it for yourself in paragraph 56.

The “Common Good” guide irresponsibly equates abortion with the death penalty, not just a mistake, but a dishonest political ploy, and a direct attempt to misrepresent authentic Catholic teaching and mislead Catholic voters.

Further investigation reveals that the publisher, TheCatholicAlliance.org, was conceived and is led by Alexis Kelley, a well-known democrat and supporter of pro-abortion Catholic politicians.

While Ms. Kelley is welcome to her political views and support whatever party or politician she chooses, she is NOT welcome to interpret and misrepresent Catholic moral teaching.

The real question that arises is why there is so much effort to diminish the abortion issue. I will offer an opinion.

Abortion is the ultimate way of covering one’s tracks. People, lots of people, lots of married people, are having sex out of wedlock. While birth control is the first line of defense in covering this sin, abortion is the last line.

But nothing is hidden from God. Adultery is bad enough to have to answer for. But the murder of a defenseless child to cover for adultery…? I’ll let you fill in the answer.

My Letter to EWTN

Dear Friends,

I watch your program often (Life on the Rock). The other day you were discussing Pelosi's obviously uninformed statement on abortion. Your program is probably not the program to get into this, but I believe EWTN needs to address the reason behind the reason why so many Catholic politicians...and Catholics in general believe they can have an independent opinion on abortion.

The problem is so pervasive that our Church must stop addressing the smoke and start dealing with the fire.

I believe Pelosi's own statement gives us a clue. She mentioned that while other politicians had been denied communion for the public pro-abortion positions, her bishop had not denied her communion.

It's easy to see how one might get the idea that the moral teaching is up for grabs when the application of the penalty appears to be..

The real culprit in the constant problem we have with Catholic pro-abortion politicians is the Church leadership in America.

When Mother Angelica was around she didn't hesitate to go after this. I've noticed that, now that she is not around, EWTN doesn't seem to have anyone with the guts to go arter this as she did.

She suffered for it, too. But that's what made EWTN. I don't see a future for EWTN unless you find someone who has the guts to do what she did. The problem is not the people. The problem is the Church leaders who continue to disobey. Mother Angelica knew that, said that, and paid the price for saying that. Will anyone follow her?

Tim Rohr
Guam

Humane Vitae's 40th Anniversary - A Tough Reflection

You would be hard pressed to find a more ardent advocate of Humane Vitae than myself. Not only am I extremely vocal about this issue, I have 11 children to prove that I walk the talk. I could also list a dozen reasons as to why our medical, physical, financial, emotional, psychological, and even geographic situation all could have sufficed for a serious reason to limit the number of our children.

Add to this the counsel from (some) clergy, friends, relatives, and doctors to do exactly that (stop having children) and we find ourselves truly alone in our desire to persevere. But we perhaps find ourselves most alone witihin the pro-life community itself. Let me explain.

There is a plethora of literature, audio & video programs, and support groups of all kinds that gush over the wisdom of Humane Vitae and the beauties of Natural Family Planning, etc. But there are two major points that I've never heard addressed, even when I've directed these questions directly to the sources of said "gushing".

The first question has to do with the much lauded example of Paul VI, standing up to the commission that studied the birth control question, going against the majority opinion, and releasing Humane Vitae anyway. While Paul VI is heralded as a hero by the pro-life community for his action, the question I have asked and never had answered is:

 WHY DID PAUL VI ALLOW THE STUDY IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THE TEACHING COULD NEVER BE CHANGED.

It was the very fact that the Vatican authorized a commission to look into the birth control question that sent ripples throughout the Catholic world that there could be a possibility that artificial contraception would be allowed. Given the times (1960's), such a thought fell right in line with the current climate and expectation of change.

The bottom line is that the creation of the commission created the expectation of change. And for a Catholic populace that was both still very attuned to Church Authority (i.e. "whatever Father says...") and at the same time on the verge of a cultural implosion (at least in the West), it is natural to see how the Catholic world could have gotten quite exercised about this. (After all, it was the Pope himself who was looking into it!)

It is the Church, and specifically John XXIII (who initially created the commission), and Paul VI (who expanded it) that must take the blame for the crisis of Faith that has plagued the Church since July 10, 1968 (the date Humane Vitae was released).

While hindsight is 20/20, and it was certainly never the intention of the Popes (John XXIII, who created the commission, and Paul VI, who expanded it) to create the havoc and crisis of faith that has plagued the Church since July 10, 1968, the damage was done, is still with us, and in my opinion, the blunder was huge.

Even Paul VI's rational for overriding the commission's majority findings ("the findings were not unanimous") created even more room for doubt and havoc since saying that the findings were not unanimous gives the impression that,, had they been unanimous the Pope would have changed the teaching. This leaves us thinking that all we need is another commission and a unanimous decision, that the teaching itself is subject to a vote!

Want to know what the numbers were? Of the 72 members on the commission, the dissenters (opposed to the liberalization of birth control) included 4 theologian priests, 1 cardinal and 2 bishops. From the impression Paul VI gave, we were only 7 votes away from the change that the world had been breathlessly led to hope for.

I only bring this up because despite the major efforts and resources devoted to the promotion of Humane Vitae and NFP and all the associated issues, I believe we are making little headway. And why is that?

2 reasons:

1. Already mentioned.

The creation of the commission was a papal error. That has to be admitted. As long as we're apologizing for the Inquisition, the Crusades, and whatever else, we might as well apologize for this. The Church needs to let people know that this (the creation of the commission) was a mistake, that it falsley raised hopes, and that we are sorry for doing so.

(My feeling is that Paul VI was aware of his mistake and was sorry for it as he would never again release another encyclical.)

The Church also needs to aplogize for the Pope's second mistake of giving the impression that a unanimous decision might have led to a different encyclical. This is even more damaging as many continue to live in hope that eventually a change might come if another commission might come up with a unanimous decision.

And why not? The "people" have seen disobedience (communion in the hand, altar girls, eucharistic ministers, etc.) rewarded over and over by an indult from the Vatican.

(Note: "NFP'ers" referred to in the following does not mean those who employ NFP according to the strictures of Church teaching. With this term I am primarily referring to those who promote NFP in the Catholic media with a type of positiveness that seems to avoid any discussion of the cross and even leans towards positioning NFP as a norm for marital relations. The ensuing will give the context to this term which I do not intend to use in a demeaning way, but perhaps skeptical.)

2 "NFP 'ers" need to get off their high horse and talk about the Cross.

Ultimately NFP is allowed because it is still open to life. Notwithstanding that perhaps many, if not most, NFP advoates use it as a form of "Catholic birth control" (spacing or limiting births without serious reason as required by the Church), the reality is that, for most couples, another child represents an unimaginable burden at every level of life. I know.

The bottom line is that the use of NFP may, regardless of the best kept charts, lead to another baby. Because the majority of NFP-ers (in the Catholic media) are busy gushing over its glories and congratulating themselves for their "openness to life", we hear little about the actual cross that comes with the child..

While some may wonder how I could dare equate a child with a cross, I would say that it is ignorant and uncharitalbe not to. It is only in understanding and taking up the cross that the cross (the child in this case) can begin to be a source of grace. For with every cross comes sufficient grace.

But because all we hear about is the warm fuzzy stuff about being open to life, parents who actually are open to life, and who continue to bring new life into the world despite staggering hardship, are left to wonder "What am I doing wrong?" "How come this doesn't feel good?" "What am I going to tell my doctor now that I'm pregnant again and I still owe him for the last one?"

No, that's the stuff we don't get to hear about...and THAT'S WHY WE ARE NOT GETTING ANYWHERE.

The NFP-ers have made the same mistake as the liberal liturgists. They have taken what is essentially an indult, a permission, and a permission only granted for the gravest of reasons, and made it the norm. In fact, that is why non-Catholics snuff off NFP as simply Catholic birth control. They are closer to the truth than we are ourselves.

What Catholicism uniquely understands is the Cross. In the end, that is all we have to hold onto anyway. It is terribly uncharitable to pretend that this isn't so.

An account of the history of the commission as found on Wikipedia

With the appearance of the first oral contraceptives in 1960, some voices in the Church argued for a reconsideration of the Church positions. In 1963 Pope John XXIII established a commission of six European non-theologians to study questions of birth control and population.[3][4] After John's death in 1963, Pope Paul VI added theologians to the commission and over three years expanded it to 72 members from five continents (including 16 theologians, 13 physicians and 5 women, with an executive committee of 9 bishops and 7 cardinals).[3][4] The commission produced a report in 1966, proposing that artificial birth control was not intrinsically evil and that Catholic couples should be allowed to decide for themselves about the methods to be employed.[3][4][5][6]

One commission member, American Jesuit theologian John Ford (with the assistance of American theologian Germain Grisez) drafted a minority report working paper that was signed by Ford and 3 other theologian priests on the commission, stating that the Church should not and could not change its long-standing teaching.[3][4][5][6] Even though intended for the Pope only, the commission's report and two working papers (the minority report and the majority's rebuttal to it) were leaked to the press in 1967, raising public expectations of liberalization.[5][7] However, Paul VI explicitly rejected his commission's recommendations in the text of Humanae Vitae, noting the 72 member commission had not been unanimous (4 theologian priests had dissented, and 1 cardinal and 2 bishops had voted that contraception was intrinsically evil--significantly Cardinal Ottaviani, the commission's president and Bishop Colombo, the papal theologian).[3][4][6] Humanae Vitae did, however, explicitly allow the modern forms of natural family planning that were then being developed.

Should I be going to Saturday "evening" Mass?

It struck me one Saturday afternoon, as I drove past several churches, that there are a lot of people who attend Saturday "evening" Mass.

As an aside, I put "evening" in parentheses because that's the actual word used in Canon 1248 where we find the permission for this "evening" Mass. However, as I drove around in very broad daylight, it was certainly not "evening".

In justifying Saturday night Mass, there is a common appeal made to the "Jewish day" (sundown to sundown) when finding justification for the Saturday "evening" Mass. (1)

The appeal is understandable but then what about actually waiting until "sundown". A literal interpretation would also negate any Mass on Sunday after sundown which would mean most Sunday evening Masses.

Actually, the Church did not make this appeal to the "Jewish day" when making the concession for the fulfillment of the obligation on the previous evening.

Here is what the Church actually said:

Where permission has been granted by the Apostolic See to fulfill the Sunday obligation on the preceding Saturday evening, pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured. The purpose of this concession is in fact to enable the Christians of today to celebrate more easily the day of the resurrection of the Lord. (Eucharisticum Mysterium, Sacred Congregation of Rites, May 25, 1967)

There are a couple things to note:

1. There is a singular emphasis on the significance of Sunday and the fulfillment of the "Sunday obligation".

2. The allowance for the Saturday evening fulfillment of that obligation is in fact only a "concession".

"Concession". That means that it is not the desire of the Church that the faithful fulfill the Sunday obligation on Saturday but only an allowance. But an allowance for what?

The key is in the words "Christians of today". The Church recognizes that the modern world is not a Christian world and that we nevertheless have to live in it. Work responsibilities on Sunday make it difficult for some to attend Mass on Sunday. The Church, in her charity and desire that all the faithful assist at Holy Mass admits a concession for the fulfillment of the obligation on Saturday evening.

In other words, you should NOT be going to Saturday "evening" Mass, unless for reasons beyond your control, you cannot attend Sunday Mass.

In the same document we find this unswerving emphasis on Sunday:

Whenever the community gathers to celebrate the Eucharist, it announces the death and resurrection of the Lord, in the hope of His glorious return. The supreme manifestation of this is the Sunday assembly. This is the day of the week on which, by apostolic tradition, the Paschal Mystery is celebrated in the Eucharist in a special way.75

In order that the faithful may willingly fulfill the precept to sanctify this day and understand why the Church calls them together to celebrate the Eucharist every Sunday, from the very outset of their Christian formation "Sunday should be presented to them as the primordial feast day,"76 on which, assembled together, they are to hear the Word of God and take part in the Paschal Mystery.

This portion of the document is presented before the "concession" so that there can be no mistake that Saturday evening Mass is in fact a "concession".

And there is also the additional appeal to pastors to safeguard Sunday:

...pastors should explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured.

Should there be any doubt over the concessionary nature of the Saturday evening Mass consider Cardinal Arinze's recent (December 1, 2005) directive to the leaders of the Neocatechumenal Way requiring that:

”at least one Sunday per month, the communities of the Neocatechumenal Way must participate in the Holy Mass of the parish community”

In addition to the problem presented by the Neocatechumenal Way celebrating Holy Mass apart from the parish community, the NCW also had been celebrating exclusively on Saturday evening.

I am not challenging the practices of the NCW, I am pointing out a contemporary application of how the Church views the Saturday evening Mass as only a concession.

If the Church at the highest levels has restated its desire that Sunday Mass remain paramount or the "primordial feast day" as the document states in regards to the practices of this one ecclesial community, then should not this desire be applicable to all of us?

Of course.

Given the actual words of the Church herself:

1. Catholics must reexamine their reasons for attending a Saturday evening Mass and must assure themselves that attendance at this Mass in lieu of Sunday is for reasons beyond their control.

2. Pastors must "explain the meaning of this permission carefully to the faithful and should ensure that the significance of Sunday is not thereby obscured." And they must periodically remind the faithful of the nature of this permission.

One final note on the time of the Saturday "Evening" Mass. While the biblical definition of "evening" varied, the contemporary definition of "evening" is normally considered that period which is "just before twilight" until "astronomical sunset" or the time when the sun no longer illuminates the sky.

Because the Church authorized the "evening" Mass for the "Christians of today" we should assume the contemporary usage of the word "evening". But as you can well see, the majority of Saturday "evening" Masses do not occur in the "evening". There is one Mass I know of that occurs as early at 3:30pm

However, Eucharisticum Mysterium gives the authority to the local ordinary to determine the allowable times for Saturday evening Masses.

Notes:
(1). It's interesting to note that Canon Law actually defines a day as follows: In law, a day is understood as a period consisting of 24 continuous hours and begins at midnight unless other provision is expressly made... (Can. 202 §1.) Obviously, the Church does not consider the day to start the evening before.

Eucharistic Ministers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Important Features of the Extraordinary Form: Eucharistic Ministers Not Used

In the extraordinary form, the distribution of Holy Communion is confined to the ordained priest (or, in rare cases, to deacons who are on their way to becoming priests). Lay ministers of the Eucharist are not used.

This aspect will no doubt seem jarring to those who have grown accustomed to the sight of laymen flocking into the sanctuary in order to function as "Eucharistic ministers." But for one thing, this practice was supposed to be rare even in the ordinary form of the Mass-hence the official title "extraordinary [in the sense of unusual] ministers of the Eucharist." More importantly, the beautiful practice of receiving Holy Communion at the hands of a priest plays an important role in reinforcing priestly identity and gives meaning to the discipline of celibacy observed throughout the Roman Rite.

Father James McLucas, former Christendom College chaplain and a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, wrote an extended and important reflection on this subject in 1998. The celibate Catholic priest, who gives up the holy estate of marriage and an exclusive relationship with an earthly spouse in order to devote himself to God's service, was traditionally consoled by an exclusive relationship of his own; he alone could touch God." The traditional role of the celibate priest as the sole administrator of the sacred, "Fr. McLucas explained, "assisted him in sublimating his natural desire for exclusivity with another in marriage, and preserved his orientation toward his spiritual espousal to the Church and his spiritual fatherhood." (10)

The priest does not lose his normal human need for an exclusive relationship with another simply because he is a priest. But while other people satisfy this need through marriage, the priest finds it in his exclusive custodianship of the Eucharist-"an incomparable and unparalleled intimacy", with God, as Fr. McLucas put it. When laymen touch the Host, they (unwittingly, no doubt) deprive him of this exclusivity, which is supposed to ground and give strength to his celibate commitment.

Furthermore, the paternal dimension of the priesthood-the priest's role as spiritual father-is undermined when the priest is in effect told that after the consecration he is really no longer needed; the laity can take things from there. "The act of the priest 'feeding' the faithful with the Bread of Life incarnates his role as Its sole provider and, far more than the eye cans see, forms his and his people's perception of his spiritual fatherhood," wrote Fr. McLucas. And young boys are less likely to pursue priestly vocations, or indeed to be intrigued by and attracted to the priestly office in the first place, if the priest is not a figure of awe, who alone brings his people the divine gifts. If Mrs. Jones can do practically everything he can, young men will be less likely to be willing to make the sacrifices associated with the priesthood.

(10) This section is deeply indebted to an extraordinary article: Fr. James McLucas, "The Emasculation of the Priesthood," The Latin Mass, Spring 1998, available at http??www.latinmasmagaizne.com/articles/articles_emasculation.html

Male Altar Servers

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

In 1994 female altar servers were suddenly permitted for use in the ordinary form of the Roman rite. But the concession...came in the form of an indult - that is, an exception to a general rule - and one that bishops were at liberty to forbid in their dioceses. "The implication is that the general liturgical norm prohibiting female altar servers remains in existence, so that in general women may not serve at the altar undless a local ordinary intervenes by a positive act and grants permission for his territorial jurisdiction. Thus, the Congregation [for Divine Worship] has clarified the authentic interpretation to mean that an indult is given to diocesan bishops to permit the use of female servers." Instruction number 2 of the indult itself urges that "it will alway be very appropriate to follow the noble tardtion of having boys serve at the altar."

[While Rome of course is within its right to do this, I have always felt that such "indults" place the bishop in an awkward position, evidenced by the fact that most of the bishops eventually "cave". However, today's bishop is the one clamoring for more autonomy and local authority in manners of church discipline. So with that freedom has come the responsibility to be the "bad guy" once in awhile. Much praise to the bishops who stand up to popular opinion and, despite indults, continue with what the Church actually prefers.]

...The very fact that the exclusively male preserve of altar service can be traced back to the beginning of the Church weighs very heavily in the equation, particularly for a Church that values Tradition as one of its pillars. ..."In the case of religious tradition which has not only existed, but has been consciously, continuously, and emphatically reaffirmed and insisted upon for two millenia, there must be an enormous and overwhelming presumption that such a traditon reflects the will of Christ." ... the "general discipline of the Church [against female altar service] has been set in stone by canon 44 of the Collection of Laodicea which dates generally from the end of the 4th century and which has figured in almost all canonical collections of East and West."

Many of the arguments against female altar servers are similar to those that justify the reservation of the priesthood to men alone, particularly since altar servers are often considered extensions of the priest (Arguments in defencse of a male-only preisthood are well summarized in Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis and the Congreagation for the Doctirine of the Faith's 1976 document Inter Insigniores, both of which are available online.) We see this close relationship between altar service and its culminationtion in the priesthood not only in that both the priest and altar servers wear the cassock and surplice, but also in certain linguistic conventions. The Spanish word fo altar boy is monaguillo, which means a "little monk." In Italian, ... "the word for altar boy is chierichetto - a "little cleric," which means that the term used naturally for "altar girs" in Italian is in itself an affront to Catholic doctrine: they are called donne chierichettoa, "little female clerics."

A married person, according to Catholic teaching as well as common sense, may not flirt or become involved romatically with a member of the opposite sex even if their relationshiop should remain technically chaste. Their behavior toward each other is logically ordered toward physical consummation even if such consummation does not in fact occur.

..."From this perspective...we could say that a woman or girl serving at the altar, no matter how devout her personal intentions, no matter how reverent, recollected and modest her deportment and dress, is by her very presence in the sanctuary engaging in what is objectively a kind of spiritual immodesty. She is flirting, as it were, with priestly ordination-mimicking it, drawing as near as she can to it with an indecorous familiartiy and an intrusive intimacy. Her liturgical role insinuates and suggests ordination as its proper goal or fulfillment, even though this is absolutely excluded by the Law of Christ."

Female altar service, in short, introduces a deep tension, an inner contradition, into the sacred litrugy. It makes an ideological statement which both politicizes and secularizes our Eucharistic worship. Instead of reflecting the sublime harmony of the communion of saints, a foretatste of Heaven itself, the sanctuary comes to symbolize an earthly battlefield in the new cold war against "patriarchy."

Kneeling for Holy Communion

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. (My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

The abandonment of this pious practice is of very recent origin - four decades ago it was still the common manner of receivng Holy Communion.

Why shouldn't we receive Christ on our knees - as was (and in some places still is) even the the traditional Lutheran posture when receiving Communion? A parish bulletin insert from several years ago employed a common argument to justify the change: "We should remember that standing itself is a gesture of reverence. It is our cultural custom to stand when a dignitary enters a room or when we sing the national anthem."

[This comment is incredibly ignorant. But I withhold comment because the author says here what I would say.]

To be sure, at some times and in certain places, standing was the posture that indicated the highest form of reverence. But that is not the case in modern Western culture, and so appeals to the practice of the early Church are irrelevant to the situation in the West here and now. It is surely unwise to disrupt traditional Catholic piety for the sake of intruducting a gesture that is less suggestive of the kind of reverence that is owed to God alone, and more suggestive of the reverence we show when a a mere "dignitary enters a room." Jesus Christ is rather more important than the ambassodor from Liechtenstein.

[I would add that this goes for the standing after Communion, and in some places, standing through the consecration as well.]

In practice, having people receive the Eucharist in an ordinary way - we stand all the time, after all - rather than an unusual one (how often do we kneel, except before Christ?) can make them think that what they are receiving in Holy Communion is relatively unremarkable. This principle has often been summed up by the Latin phrase lex orandi lex credendi, which is normally translated as "The law of prayer is the law of belief." How we pray influences what we believe. If the words and postures by which we pray leave some question about the nature of the Mass, the offering of sacrifice, and the Real Presence of Christ, then our belief in these things is likely to grow less certain and more confused.

Cardinal Ratzinger's remarks about the value of kneeling in the liturgy are worth recalling here. Kneeling, he said, "may well be...alien to modern culture," which has "turned away from the faith, and no longer knows the One before whom kneeling is th eright, indeed instrinsically necessary gesture. The man who learns to believe learns also to kneel, and a faith or a liturgy no longer familiar with kneeling would be sick at the core." He also pointed out the numerous biblical examples that emphasize kneeling as the proper posture for adoration and prayer. How appropriate, then, to kneel at the moment of Holy Communion.

Communion on the Tongue

The following excerpt is taken from SACRED THEN AND SACRED NOW - THE RETURN OF THE OLD LATIN MASS by Thomas Woods, Jr., Roman Catholic Books, www.booksforcatholics.com, Copytright 2008. My emphases and comments appear in bold type.)

Reception of Holy Communion on the tongue was the norm throughout the Latin Rite until 1969, when the Holy See issued an indult permitting the practice in the most difficult and disobedient Catholic countries. Later the indult was expanded. Italy did not have it until the 1980's - and Poland only two years ago.

Dietrich von Hildebrand, one of the twentieth-century's great moral theologians and Catholic writers, and deeply admired by Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, warned that Communion in the hand could have the effect of undermining people's faith in the Real Presence. "To be allowed to touch the consecrated host with unannointed hands is in no way presented to the faithful as an awe-inspiring privilege," he wrote in a 1973 article called "Communion in the Hand Should Be Rejected." "It becomes the normal form of receiving Communion. And this fosters an irreverent attitude and thus corrodes faith in the real bodily presence of Christ." The late theologian Father John Hardon, S.J. , urged in 1997 that "whatever you can do to stop Communion in the hand will be blessed by God."

In the same way that a deeper understanding of the theology of the Eucharist and the extraordinary gift God has given us helped to foster the practice of Eucharistic adoration, a fuller appreciation of Christ's Real Presence also led over time to the rejection of Communion in the hand and the adoption of Communion on the tongue. As the Congregation for Divine Worship noted in 1969, "Later, with a deepening understanding of the truth of the eucharistic mystery, of its power and of the presence of Christ in it, there came a greater feeling of reverence towards this sacrament and a deeper humility was felt to be demanded when receiving it. Thus the custom was established of the minister placing a particle of consecrated bread on the tongue of the communicant."

[It is a fashion of the age to resurrect some ancient practice and claim it to be the ideal or "pure". However, Catholics should want to know how and why we came to have what we have. To not do that is to deny the action of the Holy Spirit who has led us over the centuries into the "way of all Truth". In other words, to deny the product of genuine and venerable tradition is to deny the authority of the Church and the action of the Spirit. Rather than throw out what the centuries have given us, we must strive to understand the beauty of what the Church has so long labored to give us.]

It was no accident that sixteenth-century Protestants like Martin Bucer, insisted so strongly on the reception of Communion in the hand. Although Protestant opinion varied, the consensus held that Catholic teaching on the Real Presence amounted to gross idolatry. Encouraging Communion in the hand, they believed, undermined two Catholic teachings at once: the ministerial priesthood and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. First, the distribution of Communion in the hand implied that there was nothing special about the ordained priest, since laymen had just as much right to touch the Eucharist as he did. Second, receiving the Host in the hand emphasized that the Eucharist was ordinary bread - for if it is nothing more than ordinary bread, why shouldn't a layman be able to receive it directly in his hand?

That the practice of Communion in the hand was observed well over a millennium ago is virtually irrelevant. As Pope Pius XII explained in his 1947 encyclical Mediator Dei, the desire to introduce novel practices into Catholic worship when the existing practice is venerable and hallowed by tradition is at odds with a normal and healthy sensus Catholicus. May we apply this reproof to those Catholics in the 1960's who disobediently resurrected the discarded practice, centuries after Communion on the tongue had become the established norm?

In fact, Bishop Juan Rodolfo Laise of San Luis, Argentina, who announced in 1996 that Communion in the hand was to be forbidden in his diocese, drew this very conclusion, citing this teaching of Pius XII in support of his policy. The bishop's decision was subsequently approved by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which informed him that "in deciding to maintain immutable the tradition of distributing Holy Communion in the mouth [you] have acted in conformity with the law and therefore have not broken with ecclesial communion."

When Paul VI grudgingly allowed Communion in the hand in 1969, his permission came in the context of a letter urging that the traditional practice of Communion on the tongue be retained. Allowance for Communion in the hand was made as a concession for parts of the world where disobedience on this point had already reached epidemic proportions. The Pontiff thus allowed the bishops to permit the practice if they thought it the best way to cope with the situation.

We read in Memoriale Domini, the Congregation for Divine Worship's 1969 Instruction on the Manner of Distributing Holy Communion, that a "change in a matter of such moment, based on a most ancient and venerable tradition does not merely affect discipline. It carries certain dangers with it which may arise from the new manner of administering Holy Communion: the danger of a loss of reverence for the august sacrament of the altar, of profanation, of adulterating the true doctrine. "For these and other reasons, the Congregation explained, "the Holy Father has decided not to change the existing way of administering Holy Communion to the faithful. "The Congregation's warnings continued:

This method of distributing Holy Communion [on the tongue] must be retained, taking the present situation of the Church in the entire world into account, not merely because it has many centuries of tradition behind it, but especially because it expresses the faithful's reverence for the Eucharist.

Further the practice which must be considered traditional ensures, more effectively, that Holy Communion is distributed with the proper respect, decorum and dignity. It removes the danger of profanation of the sacred species, in which "in a unique way, Christ, God and man, is present whole and entire, substantially and continually." Lastly it ensures that diligent carefulness about the fragments of consecrated bread which the Church has always recommended.

The Apostolic See therefore emphatically urges bishops, priests and laity to obey carefully the law which is still valid and which has again been confirmed. It urges them to take account of the judgment given by the majority of Catholic bishops, of the rite now in use in the liturgy, of the common good of the Church.

These were the urgings and warnings that preceded the Holy See's reluctant allowance for Communion in the hand in those countries where this forbidden practice had become widespread.

...the 1962 Missal contains an edifying and very beautiful instruction to the priest: from the moment of consecration until the final ablutions, he is to hold thumb and forefinger together, in order to prevent the profanation of any particle of the Sacred Species. If for centuries the Church taught her priests to show such fastidious devotion to Christ, then Father Hardon's desire to discourage Communion in the hand becomes a matter of simple common sense - for if priests were once concerned about Eucharistic fragments just between their thumbs and forefingers, so much greater is the problem presented by the layman who takes the entire Host into his outstretched hand.

Wake up, Guam!

I'm going to go out on a limb here and insert myself simultaneously into the two "no-no's" of polite conversation: Religion and Politics.

When it comes to politics I am neither Republican or Democrat. I am a Catholic. By that I do NOT mean that I vote for the Catholic candidate...if there is one. What I mean is that I vote for the person who best represents the moral positions of the Catholic Church.

I do this not because I'm pro-life or anti-choice or any other label, but simply because I know that I WILL have to one day stand before THE JUDGE and answer for my every action. In short, I don't want to go to Hell.

Both Obama and Clinton have consistently shown that they have and will oppose Catholic Teaching on the evil of abortion. Of the two, Obama gets an even lower score for his incredible refusal to support the "Born Alive Bill", a bill that would have mandated care for babies who survived an abortion. (It happens.)

Not even some of the most virulent pro-abortion groups opposed the bill, but Obama did.

I don't have time to document all this. You can see a copy of my previous email on the subject at: http://timothyrohr.blogspot.com/search/label/Abortion or you can just google the info yourself. You will see that in fact:

"Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate ever"!

I'm staggered, appalled, bewildered, etc. over the "Guam gone ga-ga" over Obama simply because he is talking about throwing Guam a bone. While you may not think war reparations is a "bone", that's the way politocs like Obama see it: bones for votes. They do it all the time.

What a sad commentary on our island when we are willing to throw (sometimes still alive) babies in the trash in return for a phone call from a presidential pretender who knows how to pronounce the word "Chamorro" and claims to know our needs because he spent his boyhood in Hawaii. Just amazing!


I believe God has spared our island from disaster after disaster as a sign of his merciful appreciation for the steadfast centuries of Faith on Guam. I also believe that the ancestral Faith of Guam is fast disappearing, and in time, so will the unique protection of heaven that we have enjoyed.

While religious leaders cannot officially back a particular candidate they can:

1. Officialy present and represent and represent the Church's official teaching on such matters AND (most importantly) present to their flocks the consequences of supporting evil;

and,

2. Personally share their opinions on the candidate that best represents Catholic moral teaching, so long as it is not in an official capacity or from the pulpit.

Let us encourage our religious leaders to do just that!

It amazes me the resources we mobilize to combat gaming and yet we say nothing about the rallying of support for those who openly support the killing of our babies.

Christ could forgive the Roman soldiers who crucified him because in fact they, as pagans, knew not what they did. But the Sanhedrin was another story. They did know. And so do we.

Perhaps a reminder of what happened to Jerusalem in 70 A.D. would be appropriate...in case you're wondering whatever happened to the Sanhedrin.

Why I Blog

I suppose that to the casual reader of any of my posts it may appear that I am capricious and reactionary. Because of this notion certain opponents to my views consider me "dangerous", that I am "imposing" my views on people.

May I say that I am flattered, first, that anyone even bothers to read my posts, and second, that my posts are written so well as to be actually influential, and so influential as to be able to subvert the free will and free thinking of others.

However, I have no such view of myself. My posts are, first, not an attempt to publish my thoughts, but simply a convenient place to store stuff online so that I can access things I am writing and develop them as I have time. I do it online so that I don't have to always be at the same computer. Very convenient.

Second, I allow them to be public also as a matter of convenience. I am to some degree a public person insofar as I own and operate a Catholic bookstore and am often asked questions or sometimes challenged. I find it particularly useful to refer folks to something I have already written on whatever topic may be at hand. This is a convenience also to the questioner as I usually quote references in my opinions that may be of further use to the inquirer.

Third, I also find it useful to have some sort of public statement already on hand when it comes to controversial issues. As you may know, folks will often use a public name for credibility when it comes to a need to advance a cause. Because my name is public (albeit in a very minor way) I find it helpful to protect myself and my family to already have something in writing with a time and date stamp that documents my particular positions so that I can protect my name and words when they are taken out of context or used without permission.

But as to my "capricious and reactionary" labels, I have to laugh. Anything I have posted is usually a result of years of thrashing about with the topic...and years of keeping my mouth shut about it.

In any event, any posts of mine be they on my blog, email, website, whatever, are just that, my posts. Just my thoughts. I make it perfectly clear that I have no letters before or after my name and am always clear that I do not speak for the Church in any capacity. That's what blogs and stuff are for. Just a place to share personal insights, opinions, and so forth. I encourage you to do the same. But don't screw with other people's blogs, start your own.

Latin Mass Explained

Today I received the following unsolicited emails attempting to point out the error of my ways as regards my penchant for things Latin, particularly the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and the language in which it is celebrated.

The author did not identify himself, at least not in anyway that I can recognize. (Something I find instructive in itself.) While I normally don’t bother with anonymous attacks (and this is a veiled one), I decided that it would be a good opportunity to clarify a few points that I can easily reference to save time when I receive similar challenges…as I often have.

Here are the emails. My response will follow:

Email 1: Pope Benedict exemplified the truly "Catholic" nature of the Church
today in the liturgy at the National's stadium. The liturgy tuely
reflected the multi-cultural aspects of the universal (or Catholic as derived
from Greek) church. The main portions of the Mass were proclaimed in the
universal language of today (English) and various prayers and hymns were in
various languages of the faithful, such as Tagalog, Vietnamese, Korean, Nigerian
and Spanish (as well as Latin & Greek - yes the Kyrie is Greek not
Latin).

Praise God - Savior of all not just the Latins.

Email 2: Forgot to point out in my last e-mail - The pope
truly embraced the reformed rubrics for the Universal (Catholic) Mass today in
the liturgy at National's stadium. While the Tridentine Mass has its
beauty, its relevance is limited to its historic context and times. The
Vatican II liturgical reforms, as demonstrated today, clearly better reflect the
modern multi-cultural context of the today's Church.

My Reply:

I am not in a habit of replying to emails from people who do not identify themselves by their real names or at least by the name that the addressee should be able to recognize. I find it neither conducive to genuine dialogue nor charitable. So I would appreciate it if you would identify yourself if you are going to continue to send me emails.

I will, though, respond this time.

1. I have no idea why you feel it incumbent upon yourself to lecture me as to my personal preference in worship. I have complete freedom to attend the Traditional Latin Mass and to express my preference for both the Form and the Language in which it is celebrated.

2. Your reference to how the "pope truly embraced the reformed rubrics" tells me that you have no idea what rubrics are. The rubrics are the appropriate postures, movements, and gestures of the celebrant and congregation during the course of the Mass. The Pope was celebrating the Mass of Paul VI, which he has been doing since 1970, and his "rubrics" were exactly what the Missal calls for and has called for, for almost 40 years. His celebration today had nothing to do with "embracing" anything.

3. Because there was a multi-cultural display says nothing about the Pope's embracing it. The Mass was planned most probably by the archdiocese of Washington D.C. (I had originally thought the USCCB – which it may well be, but I’m guessing the D.C. archdiocese), not the Pope. If you want to know what the Pope "embraces" watch the Masses at St. Peter that he does control. You will see nothing of the kind. (We know that it was not planned by the Pope, because the music was completely antithetical to everything he had written about the use of music at Mass over the last 30 years.)

4. You mention that this particular Mass reflects "the multi-cultural context of today's Church". Wonderful. But is the Mass supposed to reflect the Paschal (Sacrificial) Mystery or the "Church of What's Happening Now"?

5. Lastly you reference the reforms of Vatican II. Have you ever read the actual document of Vatican II on the Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium)? Allow me to quote directly from the document on a few items you are obviously unaware of:

23. ... there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and
certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted
should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.

Please note the words "grow organically from forms already existing". The form "already existing" was what we now call the Traditional Latin Mass. You say that the "Tridentine Mass...is limited to its historic context and times". Not according to Vatican II. The TLM was to be the basis for organic development. In my opinion, it is one of the sad consequences of the aftermath of Vatican II that this instruction of the Council was ignored and we were given a Mass 7 years after Vatican II that was not an organic construct but a radical departure.

(Also, note this from Summorum Pontificum: “In this way the sacred liturgy, celebrated according to the Roman use, enriched not only the faith and piety but also the culture of many peoples.” The Pope is instructing us on how the Mass, as celebrated in Rome, has, throughout history, entered into the culture and changed it, NOT the other way around.)

I should also note that the Traditional Latin Mass that Pope Benedict has promoted with his Moto Proprio, Summorum Pontificum (July 7, 2007), is not appropriately called the Tridentine Mass, but the Mass of Blessed John XXIII. (Or, even more appropriately: the Mass in accordance with the Missal of Blessed John XXIII.)

Please also note the following words of the Pope in his letter to the bishops that prefaced the Summorum Pontificum in which he states that "...the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching". The Pope intends for the two Forms to inform each other - hardly possible if the TLM is simply supposed to be a museum piece as you suggest. Perhaps you should read both the SP and the accompanying letter to fully understand the Pope's intentions.

Also from Vatican II:

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be
preserved in the Latin rites.

What's this? Latin is to be preserved? Where do we see the directives of Vatican II obeyed?

and this:

116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman
liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place
in liturgical services.

Pride of place? I did not see Vatican II today at the Papal Mass. I saw a celebration of self and a complete ignoring of the directives of Vatican II.

I have no problem with people like yourself who want to create a Church in your own image and worship in whatever way makes you feel warm and comfortable.

However, I choose to worship in the way our Church has prescribed. I'm a true Vatican II Catholic. I actually read Vatican II and look for the Church where its directives, particularly its liturgical directives, are actually honored.

I ended up attending what was then called "the Indult Mass" or the TLM with permission of the Pope and Bishop becaue I could not find a Novus Ordo Mass that was actually celebrated according to the mandates of Vatican II.

Thanks be to God our local parish now has a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo according to those mandates and I am happy to attend.

If you truly feel that you are called to "straighten me out", then come and see me. We'll set a time to sit down and talk. However, as you have seen, I base all my actions and arguments on exactly what the Church ACTUALLY says, not what I want it to say.

Also, I plan to use your email and my response to it on my blog and in my general Catholic group box. Except that I will not post it and send it out with the intent to impinge on or impugn others desired form of worship.

Obama-nation

(Thanks to Chuck White for the Title)

While must of us in Guam cannot vote in the Presidential election, many of us are involved in the support of presidential canditates in some form. Thus, this is something we should know about.

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama is currently courting the residents of Guam, promising war reparations, jobs, opportunities, etc. (See PDN 4/10/08),

His overtures put Guam's Catholics in a quandry of whether they will "serve God or mammon".

While Obama proposes to give Guam what many consider their "just do". Catholics cannot ignore his VERY anti-life voting record:

GovWatch: Obama's "present" votes were a requested strategy. (Feb 2008)
Expand access to contraception; reduce unintended pregnancy. (Feb 2008)
Rated 100% by NARAL on pro-choice votes in 2005, 2006 & 2007. (Jan 2008)
Voted against banning partial birth abortion. (Oct 2007)
Stem cells hold promise to cure 70 major diseases. (Aug 2007)
Trust women to make own decisions on partial-birth abortion. (Apr 2007)
Extend presumption of good faith to abortion protesters. (Oct 2006)
Constitution is a living document; no strict constructionism. (Oct 2006)
Pass the Stem Cell Research Bill. (Jun 2004)
Protect a woman's right to choose. (May 2004)
Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

Also, you can see several of Obama's exact quotes on abortion here.

As an Illinois state senator he refused to support the Born Alive Infants Bill - legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions.

While many people are aware of Partial Birth Abortion, a procedure where a live baby is extracted from the mother feet first and then stabbed in the back of the head, few are aware of the procedure that the Born Alive Bill is meant to protect.

These babies are born alive after induced labor and then left to die. Obama would not support a bill to make this "procedure" illegal. (See: Obama Is the Most Pro-Abortion Candidate Ever)

The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always evil, that there are no circumstances in which it can be allowed. (See Catechism 2272)

Our Church also teaches that a "well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals." (See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Notes on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life.)


The support of Obama (and Hillary Clinton too) is not a "direct" vote for a law that "contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals", but "being one step removed from law-making doesn't let citizens off the hook, since morality requires that we avoid doing evil to the greatest extent possible." (Catholic Answers voting guide).

There will be those who will contend that McCain is in error for supporting the war in Iraq but our Church makes it very clear that the issues of war and abortion are not in the same moral category (see CCC 2309, 2267). War is not intrinsically evil and thus sometimes allowed. Abortion (and euthanasia) is NEVER allowed and is ALWAYS evil.

In order to protect the tax exempt status of the parish (or diocese), a church leader may not advocate for or against a particular party or candidate. However, there is nothing that inhibits our pastors from instructing Catholics on the demands of our faith as concerns moral issues and the consequences of our actions.

It would be wonderful to see our Church take moral leadership in this regard. However, each one of us has a severe moral duty to confront those among us who are contributing to the camps of pro-abortion candidates. And perhaps since as individuals we do not have to concern ourselves with IRS rules, we can be even more upfront and effective